- Joined
- Aug 2026
- Subscription
- Core
Admissions profile
Discussions
@myayaya whoever wrote option A needs to learn when to and how to use commas. You cannot change
if true it would have consequences that are false
into
it would if true have consequences that are false
without putting if ture in between commas. They literally do that in question stems for a reason.
@c00lbeans Literally, especially for this question shallow dip eliminates all the 4 wrong choices
@MacSelesnick That's the thing, you do not need to know it. Being vulnerable to a criticism does not necessarily mean the criticism is correct. The text do not mention anything on negativity of avoiding dairy foods. In the meantime it connected avoiding dairy foods to increase in probability of maintaining overall health. It is then natural to question that, yes maybe it does increase the probability of avoiding heart disease, but is this the only factor that affects maintaining good health. Surely not. So the text should have considered other effects before connecting improvement of one health factor to overall maintenance of health.
@WAJ
@NA
I initially chose option D. Option D is wrong since the fact that one is likely find that both has been proposed is not necessary. They might have been proposed by some entity, this is not required to conclude that both doctrines are mistaken.
Before stating the correct answer, let's locate one subtle necessity. The conclusion here is that both of the doctrines are wrong, with the premise that there has been cases where both applies together. In order to have this premise support the conclusion, we need the assumption that the doctrines are exclusive.
Above reasoning makes us come to option A and option B.
Option B is wrong becuse the second doctrine can place the importance only on childhood experiences, but that does not mean it excludes economical factors.
Option A, in the meantime, states that the first doctrine precludes every other factor that is noneconomic. This is required to have the first and second doctrine to be exclusive.
@eggpancake I see your reasoning, but the text is about developing hissing as to impose threat upon potential predators. It does not talk about means of self-defence. You could correctly assume and argue smaller size is better for self-defence however this does not connect with the text. In contrary, matter of fact, you can reasonably assume small body size is not threatening which goes against the text.
@RRE
@WAJ
@Review
My initial answer was B. Option B is incorrect because having multiple ways to impose threat on the potential predators do not justify the development of hissing.
My blind review answer, D, is also incorrect. The fact that hissing is less energetically consuming does not imply that the common ancestor would have prefered and developed hissing to impose threat.
Option A is not correct because if the common ancestor lacked the ability to hear hissing, why would it bother developing it?
Option E is not correct because having a few potential predators does not justify lack of threatening towards those few predators.
Option C is correct since having a larger body size does pose a threat to potential predators, though this is an assumption. Option C is correct because it has the most plausible assumption compared to other options, assuming larger body size is threatening to potential predators.
@blueberry It in fact can be the case that /Persian cat is possibly satisfied even though the cat is irritating. You have a conditional chain, and ending the chain with a True statement do not tell anything about the sufficient condition.
The answer is E, not because E is false, but because E is not necessarily True.
In a more general, formal logic setup,
A -> B
is the same as
not A or B
So
not (A->B)
is the same as
not (not A or B)
which is then in return is
A and not B
From what i understand, for international applicants that have less than 60 US credit hours, LSAC does not report the GPA impact on the median. First of all is this correct? How do admission comitees evaluate the normally would be splitters (higher LSAT lower GPA), since the GPA factor becomes a bit ambiguous. How is the general evaluation of such applicants?
A fast (also possibly even mental) diagraming would be
Let A = "Price of coffee beans continues to increase", B = "Coffee shop will have to increase prices", C = "Coffee shop sells non coffee products", D = "coffee sales decrease", E = "Decreased profitability". The logical components we are given
A -> B,
B -> (C or D)
C -> E
not E -> not D which also is (D ->E)
Therefore, if A is true, then so is B, then so is either C or D or both, and hence E is true. The chain yields A -> E, which exactly is the statement of C.
In Example 4, do we not assume
False -> False
when this is not necessarily ture? Example goes
If the concentration of air pollutants is above normal for a prolonged period, then there are many more respiratory issues.
Consider this statement as A -> B. Then, the claimed implied comparison is
(B when A) is more likely than (B when not A).
Yes B is guaranteed when A holds, but we do not know whether B is guaranteed or not when A does not hold, and it could very well be the case.
With this in mind, rather than a strict comparison, it does feel like it leaves grounds for not having a winner.
@RealAlHorford think positive, you could have changed the wrong answer to the wrong answer